Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite explained that in our federalist system, individuals are citizens of two governments. He wrote, “[t]he people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National; but there need be no conflict- between the two. The powers which one possesses, the other does not. They are established for different purposes, and have separate jurisdictions.” Waite argued that the protection of fundamental rights did not give the federal government unchecked authority over individual citizens. Instead, the primary responsibility for protecting citizens’ rights was with the states, unless the state itself violated those rights.

Waite further held that neither the First Amendment’s protection of the right to assemble nor the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms did not restrict the actions of state governments. He wrote that the right to assembly “was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference,” and that “[t]he second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government…” Waite also argued that while the Fourteenth Amendment extended certain rights to all citizens, including protection against state infringement, it did not empower the federal government to enforce those rights against private individuals. He contended that the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment primarily addressed state action, not private actions. Thus, federal prosecution of individuals for violating civil rights could not be brought under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Speaking specifically on the indictments under the Civil Rights Act of 1870, Waite criticized the broad and vague nature of the charges brought against the defendants. He argued that the indictments failed to specify the exact actions or violations committed by the defendants, making it impossible to determine whether they had actually violated federal law and interfering with the Sixth Amendment’s right to be informed of the charges against them. He cited the Court’s decision in United States v. Cook (1873) in which it was held that “every ingredient of which the offense is composed must be accurately and clearly alleged.” Waite concluded, overturning the convictions and writing “[t]hey are so defective that no judgment of conviction should be pronounced upon them.”